This article certainly needs reassessment. Its Good Article assessment has not been revisited since it was first assessed as such in 2007. The article noticeably falls below today's standards for a "Good Article" assessment, thus necessitating reassessment. Among other issues, the article appears rather euro-centric, scattered, and contains a section which has been marked as lacking citation since August 2014. Recognizing this, I am opening a community reassessment of the article. SecretName101 ( talk) 16:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
This article certainly needs reassessment. Its Good Article assessment has not been revisited since it was first assessed as such in 2007. The article noticeably falls below today's standards for a "Good Article" assessment, thus necessitating reassessment. Among other issues, the article appears rather euro-centric, scattered, and contains a section which has been marked as lacking citation since August 2014. Recognizing this, I am opening a community reassessment of the article. SecretName101 ( talk) 16:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)